3number

Wk 2 dq 2…Define and discuss the differences between intentional torts, unintentional torts and strict liability. Do you agree with the principles of "Negligence Per Se" and "Res Ipsa Loquitur"?

Intentional torts-Torts actionable upon evidence of an intent to cause harm on another, such as trespass, assault, invasion so forth.

Unintentional torts- Individual action or failure to act as a reasonably prudent person would under similar circumstances, resulting in harm to another.

Strict liability-Makes a person responsible for the damage and loss caused by his/her acts and omissions regardless of culpability.

The difference between intentional torts and unintentional torts is that IT is assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and UT IS Negligence, malpractice, recklessness. Basically, one is deliberate acts and the other is negligent. As for strict liability, one will still be held responsible regardless of intent or not.

I do agree with “Negligence Per Se" and "Res Ipsa Loquitur”. It’s very useful to supply a deficiency of proof as to negligence. It also permits inference of negligence when the evidence of how the injury occurred is not clear. I think it’s used for the right purposes and one must qualify before the plaintiff proceeds with trying to prove their side. If it’s approved, the plaintiff only has to prove that he incurred damages as a result of the defendant's actions in order to win the case.

Solution Description

Wk 2 dq 2…Define and discuss the differences between intentional torts, unintentional torts and strict liability. Do you agree with the principles of "Negligence Per Se" and "Res Ipsa Loquitur"?

Intentional torts-Torts actionable upon evidence of an intent to cause harm o